From Jim Mittler, Medical Director, PhD, Palio

We’ve all seen bad drug advertisements – confusing concepts, poorly written or too much copy, disconnected visual elements, etc. The FDA is now stepping up their monitoring for bad ads, but not for the creative aspects or connection to the brand. (Although, in some cases I wish there was an organization that could pull poorly executed creative.)

Last week, the FDA announced the launch of the “Bad Ad Program,” which is an educational outreach effort to encourage physicians to do what the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) can’t necessarily do – monitor what is communicated during face-to-face interactions with pharmaceutical representatives. Traditionally, DDMAC reviews promotional materials developed by pharmaceutical companies (eg, journal ads, TV commercials, sales aids, or slide kits) to ensure that information is on-label and accurately portrays the efficacy of a drug while clearly stating the potential risks so that physicians can make informed prescribing decisions. Through the Bad Ad Program, DDMAC will seek to educate HCPs on what constitutes inappropriate promotional activities and will encourage HCPs to report possible violations. So not only is the content of promotional materials monitored, but by using HCPs as their agents, how these materials are used and the information articulated can also be monitored by DDMAC.

What this means is that verbal communications that occur in promotional settings such as sales representative office visits and industry-sponsored dinner and speaker programs could be under scrutiny. In the current conservative environment, sales reps are careful not to discuss off-label use or overstate the efficacy of a drug. Now, glancing over the safety data in a sales aid or the Important Safety Information slide during a presentation is frowned upon, as it should be. However, the increased scrutiny by HCPs could deter sales reps from deviating from a predetermined script and they could lose meaningful conversations out of fear that they could misspeak or be misinterpreted, and subsequently be reported to DDMAC. It may be difficult for DDMAC to determine what was discussed in a private meeting; however, according to FDA officials, if there is systematic misrepresentation, FDA reviewers will be able to spot similar complaints about a drug coming from multiple doctors, which would signal DDMAC to investigate.

The question remains if HCPs will take the time to report anything they feel is misleading or inappropriate. Additionally, will this enhanced surveillance lead to increased enforcement? The FDA has gotten tougher on promotional materials developed by drug marketers. Issuance of enforcement letters is higher than it has been in the past, with 31 warning letters already issued by DDMAC through May 2010 (which is on pace to exceed the 41 letters issued in 2009 and tops the 21 letters issued in 2008). However, if a high volume of complaints arise, there are questions regarding how the FDA will be able to investigate and issue timely corrective action due to the limited resources within the FDA. Regardless, even if DDMAC enforcement is logistically problematic, the Bad Ad Program could be a deterrent and improved compliance to DDMAC regulatory principles on the part of the pharmaceutical companies is sure to follow.

From Jeremy Lichtenberger, Senior Brand Planner, Palio

Let’s be honest. Bacon is awesome! You know it. I know it. And the rest of the solar system knows it – remember “Pigs in Space” from the Muppets? – exactly. And we’ve all had that dream… you know the one where you are flying, and you start to smell bacon so then you land in a place where everything is made of bacon. “Oh excuse me sir, can I have the double maple bacon sandwich, with a side of bacon and can you add a few strips of smoked apple wood bacon to my bacon sammy and perhaps a little jalapeno bacon on the side?”

Wake up people. The reality is that too much bacon will kill us all.

That’s why two geniuses and I mean GENIUSES, quit their jobs in the technology field and invented “Bacon Salt.” It’s a salt product that makes anything you eat taste like bacon! Take a deep breath. OK, keep reading. In all seriousness, what I really like about this brand is its personality. Just the idea of this product is over-the-top so it makes sense that the brand’s personality follows suit.

The Web site tells the story of their passion to make everything taste like bacon and features video of a dude dressed as a piece of bacon promoting the product at tailgate parties across the mother land. Bacon Salt has a bacon blog and even better, the brand started a fake public service campaign to stop the madness of people snorting Bacon Salt. The success of Bacon Salt has lead them to create baconnaisse – bacon flavored mayo. That is so awesome I can’t even write anything about it. You can find them on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and everywhere else.

Check out their brand, it’s very cool. And God bless bacon. Amen.

http://baconsalt.com/

http://www.baconsaltblog.com/

From Paul Johnson, SVP, Account Services, Palio

“To attack or defend” is a question our pharmaceutical clients seem to deliberate over incessantly when facing substantial competition within their categories. They utilize war game research, physician IDI (in-depth interviews), and many other tools to help guide their strategic decisions. Often times, these primary research tools tell a hyper-inflated, depressing story that the new competitor will replace the incumbent product in just a matter of time. To further compound the brand manager’s decision, marketing budgets of the incumbent brand are often tight, forcing them to make tough decisions about their marketing dollars when facing a competitor with a launch budget.

We recently evaluated this strategic issue for a client from a purely objective perspective, and found surprising results. To guide our comparison, we sought to find product analogs facing new competition with a similar efficacy profile but some substantial advantage in a tangible asset (less frequent dosing, lower side effect burden, etc.). We limited our search to products facing competition from 2005 through 2009 so that we could evaluate the number of tactics initiated, the media channels utilized, and the total spends within channels. We sought to understand how companies allocated sales details, professional tactics, direct-to-physician tactics (non-field related), journal advertising, and professional education resources. To caveat our findings, we were only able to find substantial data in a handful of categories, so more research in this area is warranted to provide conclusive results.

Our results were surprisingly consistent. When facing a single competitor or multiple competitors with a better profile, many brands assume a defensive posture and contract resources. In multiple instances, including muscle relaxants, osteoporosis, and acne, when companies retracted resources in the face of launch competition in multiple media channels, they lost substantial market share in the first 12 months of the competitor’s launch.  We also observed a “Johnny Come Lately” phenomenon in the analogs we evaluated, where several of the brands we evaluated increased their marketing spends in the year following the launch of competition, seemingly in an effort to regain lost territory. Conversely, when a product increased spends in multiple media channels in anticipation for a competitive launch and maintained resources through the initial launch period, the impact of the competitive launch on the incumbent brand was blunted. We observed that brands which maintained or increased resources in professional tactics, sales force details, journal advertising, direct-to-physician tactics, and professional education offerings either lost less than expected market share or actually continued to grow their market share.

Our evaluation of this issue would support that, indeed, the best defense is a good offense. In our limited observations, brands that maintain positive momentum in the face of competition were better served than brands that took their foot off the accelerator. Many brand managers will struggle with this strategic decision at some point in their careers. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on primary research, urge them to examine brand analogs with similar attributes for insight. The results may surprise them, too.

*The origin of this adage is unknown.  It has been attributed to prizefighter Jack Dempsey, the late PRC Chairman Mao Zedong, Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.  If you don’t believe me, go to Wikipedia. When is that ever wrong?

From Peter Hopper, VP, Account Services, Palio

Just awhile ago, L2, a self-described think tank focused on marketing innovation, announced the L2 Digital IQ Index for pharmaceutical brands – its first ever, digital-prowess rankings for our industry.

And more recently we saw Wired take a strong stance on challenging the developers of the world to take notice and pursue open alternatives to social media phenom – and dominating – Facebook, and a groundswell of support gathered quickly. This call-to-action was followed by a NY Times profile of four New York University students who raised $115,000 via “crowdsourced” funding in an eye-blink, 10 times their initial goal, to tackle the decentralized, privacy-sensitive social networking need challenged by Wired.

In June is Untethered 2010: Profitable Media in the Tablet Era, a day-long conference in NYC focused broadly on the near-horizon implications for every consumer, including healthcare consumers, by the new tablet devices. Thank you, iPad.

This is news ripped from the tech headlines, and there are a thousand other examples of digital prophets commanding our attention, interpreting and predicting this brave new world. And that’s the point. Thousands of voices and points of view, a twist on the medium is the message. New digital venues. New analytics. New strategies. New applications. New hardware. New software. New integration schemes. A big, brand new band wagon, every day. Do this, no, do that; try this, no, that was yesterday.

How do you make sense of it all? Well, there’s an app for that. Not really.

Mind boggling

With this brave new world, and the clarity we have come to rely upon of how the pharma digital space is going to be regulated, there comes a cacophony of daily best practices. How quickly we jump on a bandwagon, how flexible we are in our implementations, how we balance these new realities – how smart we are in paying attention to this ever-changing landscape – are the things that will build success. It is indeed mind boggling. The pace and volume of new alternatives requires developing a dedicated set of resources intimate with your business and business goals. It requires being practical in your assessment of the daily shifting digital space. It demands a realistic mindset:  a balanced approach of truly integrated initiatives will produce a better yield. It is not always about being the early adopter, just the smart one.

Remember as a kid, playing on the teeter-totter with a friend, hanging high in the air when your friend decides to bail out and you went crashing to the ground? It’s all about balance.

From Todd LaRoche, EVP, Managing Director of Creative, Palio

I’ve worked in advertising on the creative side for over 30 years now; originally as a copywriter and lately as the Managing Director of the creative staff at one of today’s most creative advertising agencies. It’s been in my best interest over all these years to promote the idea that great creative is key to building a strong bond between a brand and its consumer. Of course I still believe that to be the case. But now I’m going to say something that might sound heretical, coming from a ‘creative’:

A brand’s draw is becoming less about how creatively it expresses itself (in such a self-absorbed way such as an advertisement), and more about how satisfying an experience it can provide to its consumer – even before a purchase is made.

Don’t get me wrong: I love creative advertising… anything that entertains seems to be appreciated by most all of us. And good old awareness advertising will always have its place. But thanks to the digisphere (the digital atmosphere which is now blanketing humanity with its addictive connectivity), people today expect so much more in terms of what a brand should be offering them.

We all want to be given something that brings ‘value,’ pleasure, learning, growth, discovery, a deeper appreciation of our time, (insert your desire here), and not to simply be ‘sold’ on why brand X is better than the rest. And, at the same time, we’re all getting used to getting what we want, fast. In short, if I’m not getting something from you that I want – immediately – then I’m going to move on to find it elsewhere… because time is short and I’ve got a lot of living to do.

So how does the digisphere suddenly change the rules (for marketers)? Before we answer that question, it needs to be understood that if you’re looking at digital communications as simply another medium to ‘execute’ your brand’s campaign, you’re in trouble; you’re not seeing the bigger picture. Digital communications have allowed us to engage our brands’ targets in ways that traditional (interruptive) marketing never has. Think of the digital medium as contexts – arenas of technologically-enabled activity – and the pieces start falling into place.

When you see digital that way, the line between advertising and content (or experience) becomes indistinct. And with that, a brand is suddenly enabled to insinuate its presence while its target is dazed in the satisfying ether of connectivity – connectivity with information, people, visual and aural stimulation.

I could give you some examples of exactly what I’m talking about. But first I’d like to ask if you’d even care to hear more before I do.

By the way, if you want to get a little further out than the usual, visit  www.flixxy.com. And if you feel that your time there was worth it, think of Palio… we’re all about going beyond the usual and expanding one’s reach.

By Randy Glasbergen

From Tim Phalen, Medical Writer, Palio

Controversies surrounding prescription drugs are permanently on the media radar these days. This is not surprising given the huge and receptive audience for news about drug safety and effectiveness. The ever increasing availability of new drugs, and a populous generation reaching the age when more healthcare and prescription medications are needed has contributed to the increase of that audience. According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly half of Americans report using at least one prescription medication and 63% of Americans 65 and older report taking 3 or more medications. However, despite a growing dependence on medications and an expectation for new and better therapies, there is also a high level of distrust of the pharmaceutical industry and its products among this audience.  This distrust may have been established and fed, in part, by several high profile media stories in recent years about concerns with commonly used prescription drugs. While there were legitimate questions of safety and efficacy being addressed, some of the coverage approached sensationalism, and the stories became less about the risks posed to patients and more about the motives of the pharmaceutical industry or problems with the prescription drug approval and regulation process in general.

The controversy surrounding Vioxx in 2004 set the bar for media coverage of prescription drugs. The release of studies showing an increased risk of heart attack and stroke with long-term use of the widely prescribed painkiller, and subsequent withdrawal from the market caused a panic. Some follow-on stories strayed from the specific safety issue with Vioxx and posed questions drug safety in general, and asked if there could be “other Vioxx’s.” There were also several, “what did they know, when did they know it?” type stories.

A few years later in 2007, when questions arose about an increased risk of heart failure with the widely prescribed diabetes drug Avandia, it was dubbed as ,“the next Vioxx,” in many media reports well before the issue got a full vetting. This nickname implies less about the nature of safety risk than it does about the media frenzy that was expected to, and did, ensue. It should be noted that the evidence for this risk was enough to necessitate a “black box” warning and further study. However unlike Vioxx, it is still on the market and being used by many, albeit far fewer patients, and the recommendation by the FDA to physicians is for patients to continue using it if it is still working for them. This ongoing inquiry into the cardiovascular safety may finally be resolved after a comparison of Avandia and Actos, a member of the same drug class is completed, which could be very soon.

Next was the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin. The 2008 controversy surrounding Vytorin was a bit more complicated and was focused on questions of efficacy, reporting of clinical trial results, and the overall drug approval process. Vytorin is actually a combination of two drugs, and when the results of a clinical trial (the ENHANCE trial) showed that Vytorin didn’t cause an improvement in a surrogate marker for cardiovascular health when compared to one of its component drugs (and a cheaper alternative), the need for an expensive drug like Vytorin was called in to question. Nothing was really answered by this trial, but it did spur the initiation of longer-term trials that should determine if there is a cardiovascular benefit with Vytorin. A controversy like this one is not as fear-inspiring as one about the sudden discovery of a safety risk, but it certainly got a great deal of attention. Had the stage not been set by Vioxx and Avandia, it may not have made headlines.

So, what’s the big deal about the media raising alarms and making headlines out of prescription drug controversies? The public can’t be blamed for turning their attention to such stories, nor should the media not be expected to ignore an issue that affects so many people. However, as was seen with each of these controversies, there was panic, confusion, and some anger among patients, which tended to perpetuate the coverage with stories about the reaction to the news instead of the primary issue at hand. In the midst of this panic, many patients immediately stopped taking whichever drug was in the news as well as other unrelated prescription medications before consulting with their doctor. While these patients may have thought they were protecting themselves, it’s just as likely that they were harming their health by avoiding their prescribed medications.

Much of this sensationalism and ensuing panic could be avoided if a couple of things were emphasized when prescription drug controversies or safety warnings surface.

First, all prescription and OTC medications carry some level of risk with them. There is no perfectly safe drug. Some are associated with very significant risks, others are relatively benign when used correctly. In every case it’s a matter of balancing the benefit with the risk. A drug with a high risk potential may be acceptable if it offers an even greater potential to benefit the patient, or if it’s only one of a few options for a serious disease. Also, as is often the case, a drug may not pose a risk to all patients with a particular disease, only certain groups. This type of risk/benefit evaluation is best handled by trained physicians, and is outside the scope of most media reports.

Second, pharmaceutical companies are subject to incredibly stringent regulations and oversight by the FDA, and billions of dollars are spent in clinical trials and in postmarketing studies to detect and determine safety risks. When a safety risk is found it’s documented, evaluated, and communicated to physicians and patients through multiple channels. Many times, the evidence that raises concerns about a drug’s safety comes from studies that don’t meet the strict criteria of the FDA for drug approval, and is found after it has reached the market. This type of evidence provides a reason for additional study, but it’s usually not enough to conclusively determine how serious that risk may be. It can take years before that’s established.

There will undoubtedly be more prescription drug controversies to come. When another one does make headlines, the public will be best served by a presentation of the facts and a reminder that any decisions people make about their medications should be done in consultation with a healthcare professional.

From Tiffany Ryan, VP, Account Services, Palio

I come from a background in the service industry, meaning I used to balance trays of food and make restaurant diners happy. Yes, I was a waitress, and I loved every minute of it. I loved customer service, which is likely why I chose the career path I did. But because of my driving passion for it, and my years of experience waiting on, and cleaning up after, restaurant patrons, I suppose I have high expectations.

Good customer service can be really hard to come by. I fear that I have far more complaints about the service I’ve received lately than I do praises. However, I recently had one experience from the new local butcher shop, The Meat House, that left me wanting more. No joke. Sometimes the most valuable lessons come from the most unusual places.

Their approach, while heads above the rest, is rooted in the basics of customer service. My experience was nothing short of exemplary, and I’m looking forward to many more visits:

- They said hello, welcomed me, and thanked me for coming. It wasn’t just a hello, I was genuinely welcomed. It was as though they appreciated my business before I even bought anything.

- They asked me if they could help me. They determined my needs, and remained attentive (without hovering or nagging) the whole time I was in the store.

- They helped me understand what I had selected and made sure I knew how to cook it. It was insurance that I’d have a great experience with their brand.

- They anticipated my needs. You might be able to make an argument that they upsold me by making sure I included a loaf of bread with my purchase, but in this case, I really did need it.

- They demonstrated an understanding of my key issues and needs, and offered to go above and beyond to accommodate me. I was making small talk with one of the managers and mentioned that I hadn’t been in yet because getting my two young kids in and out of their car seats was too much of a hassle. He immediately offered to let me call in my order and my purchase would be waiting for me and delivered to me curbside. Seriously? I was hooked.

- They left me wanting more, by delivering supreme customer service throughout my entire visit. They carried my bags to the car for me. It was very retro and visionary at the same time.

These are simple approaches to what can sometimes be a complex challenge – customer management and satisfaction. These are fundamental rules of customer service, but what sets them apart is their flawless and consistent execution of these fundamentals.

I never thought I’d be able to draw a parallel between my first visit to the butcher and working in an ad agency. But when you look at the basics of a good Agency/Client relationship, the same principles apply: make sure your clients’ know that you appreciate their business; anticipate their needs and be ready to deliver a solution; go above and beyond whenever you can. But the one thing that really struck me, was that they left me wanting more. Every time you and your client meet or converse, they should leave thinking “Boy, they do a great job, I can’t wait until we start our next project.” If not, you just open the door to a competitor.

I left feeling happy, excited about my purchase, and looking forward to another visit. And the product itself? Frankly, it was so good, that it easily could have dwarfed the customer-service experience and kept me coming back for more. Had the outcome been disappointing, I would have been willing to go back and have a discussion with the manager to resolve the issue. I would have felt compelled to give them a second chance. I would argue that this is one of the most important outcomes of good customer service. If your client has a bad experience, you want them coming back to you to discuss it – not shopping elsewhere.

And in the end, this entire experience got me thinking – what have I delivered to my clients today? Would it live up to The Meat House standards?

Palio is a full-spectrum global pharmaceutical and consumer advertising, marketing, and communications agency that excels in brand creation and specializes in brand strategy, product launches, global marketing, and digital and integrated media.

From Paul Harrington, SVP, Creative Director, Palio

You sit down to dine at a fine restaurant: it’s supposed to be the best in town, impeccable service, and the food is reputed to be out-friggin’ standing. It’s going to cost you a bundle, of course, but worth every penny, right? So, would you hand your menu to a stranger at the next table and let him order for you?

Of course not. While the anonymous diner next to you at Chez Fancypantz might have some things in common with you – after all, you both breathe oxygen, you’re in the same restaurant on the same night, and might both be able to afford a meal like this – you really are your own person, with your own tastes and objectives. Why would you let a perfect stranger order your dinner for you? Instead, maybe a better idea would be to lean over and confidentially ask, “Say friend, how’s the steak here?”

You solicited an opinion to help you make a more informed decision. That’s the American Way: free thought, individual choices. So why, for Pete’s Sake, do brand managers let a roomful of strangers choose a marketing campaign for them in research instead of choosing themselves?

Tummy troubles.

Research/testing/interviews are just what their name implies: they are fact-gathering exercises. Fuel for making informed decisions. Yet all too often, advertising agencies sit back in horror and watch their client brand managers abdicate a marketing decision to a roomful of strangers. Talk about a case of indigestion.

Millions of dollars go into the preparation of concepts for the purpose of testing. And this litmus test of ideas is terrific, a crucible that helps separate the good from the bad, the better from the best. Opinions count, and understanding what your customers want is critical. Yet to let the strangers on the other side of the glass choose your marketing campaign is a recipe for disaster.

It takes guts.

However, a room full of gastrointestinal surgeons is not a room full of marketing experts. They don’t know your business plan, your competitive challenges, the looming FDA hurdles, and the rest. They know intestines. God Bless ‘em, they know intestines inside and out.

So let them tell you what they know about their specialty, their practice, their patients, and even what they think about the intestine medicine concept your ad agency created that uses the Gordian Knot analogy. That’s valuable information.

But their input is not a “get out of jail free” card. It doesn’t shift the responsibility for making the hard marketing decisions from our shoulders. We, the marketers, have to account for their tastes and opinions, but in the end, we have to have the intestinal fortitude to make a decision and pick a concept that will change behavior. (Sensing a digestive theme here yet?)

Queasy? Good.

In the ‘80s, there was a great quote: “If your advertising doesn’t give you butterflies, don’t run it.” A quarter of a century later, we seem to have forgotten that advertising is supposed to be inherently risky – the old, “nothing ventured, nothing gained” mentality has gone the way of the dodo. Advertising must be daring and unorthodox, because we are asking the audience to change the way they presently think. Why would they do that if the ad you show them only reaffirms what they already know.

Ergo, if 4 out of 5 gastrointestinal surgeons liked the Gordian Knot concept, that doesn’t make it a good ad to run. Their appreciation may well mean that this concept made them the most comfortable and felt the most familiar. It didn’t rock their world too much. It was the safe choice. Sure, it’s good. It tested near the top. It makes everyone feel swell, and everyone up the corporate food chain will stamp it “a-ok.” Mission accomplished.

Run. Don’t walk – RUN from this concept. It doesn’t possess the power to change behavior. It doesn’t challenge conventional thinking, and it doesn’t challenge the audience to consider another POV.

You want your advertising to make people uncomfortable. They will then purchase your product to alleviate that discomfort. If everything is safe, happy, and bouncy, why do they need what you’re selling?! Disturb them. Rock their world. Shake their faith. Make them question their fervently held opinions. Then, in a true behavior modification model, reward them for doing what you wanted by giving them a savory treat: your product.

Listen and learn from your stomach.

This is a risk, of course. It takes guts, and might cause you some sleepless nights and a trip or two to kneel before the porcelain throne. It’s damn scary. But it’s scary good too, like a great carnival ride. Buckle up buttercup, cuz it’s gonna be a wild ride.

However, you will ultimately own the day. You, the bold one who dared to follow your inner voice and break a new trail, will be validated. You looked, You listened. You internalized and studied. And in the end, you trusted your experience, heard the counsel of your peers, and ultimately followed your gut instinct. Boo-yah.

An advertising campaign that “listens” to research instead of “obeying” it?

Mmmmmm: tasty. Order up, and dig in.

- Paul Harrington, Iron Chef

From Geoff Sheldon, VP, Brand Planning Director, Palio

Even though medical journals are still the primary source of information for the majority of physicians, and readership is on the rise (a 2009 PERQ/HCI syndicated readership survey showed that readership and ad exposure increased 9% and 13% respectively from 2005), advertising within this medium is falling (down 13% in 2008) and there appears to be a growing perception among pharmaceutical marketers that these ads just don’t work.

And maybe they don’t, but I would argue that it is not the medium that is at fault, but rather the advertisements themselves.

This, once again, occurred to me as I was completing a competitive audit for one of my clients and I was left wondering, why is that the basic principles of communication are forgotten in the average pharmaceutical professional journal advertisement (brand advertisements targeted directly at physicians)? By the basic principles I mean ads with a singular focus that engage and motivate the consumer to take action.

The thing that I was struck by in this audit, and it appears to have become a lot worse over the last couple of years, was just how much information was being inserted into these journal ads. It seems that with the decline in sales rep access to physicians over the last few years, the solution has just been to use print/journal ads as a medium to just reprint sales aids in their entirety, and shove as many marketing messages as possible into 1 or 2 8½” x 11″ sheets.

The result: ads that don’t communicate a single message, and are so overly cluttered no one is going to bother to stop and read them. In short, ads that serve no purpose at all. Hardly surprising then that many a marketing manager is sitting around saying these ads are just not effective.

So what makes an effective print ad? The best print ads, provide a tease, they leave you thinking, they capture your curiosity, and they motivate you to learn more and take action.

Very few professional pharmaceutical journal ads do this. Flick through the ads in a recent medical journal and have a look at how many teasers or genuine calls to action you see. URLs are seemingly included as afterthoughts, and very rarely will you even see the words “for more information visit… “, and why would you, when everything has already been jammed into a single page.

In today’s evolving pharmaceutical market and changing media landscape journal ads need to work harder. They need to do more than simply raise brand awareness; they need to have strong calls to action, i.e. they need to drive traffic to the website traffic where physicians can actively engage with the brand and enter into customer relationship programs.

It is unlikely, though, that this can be achieved with today’s typically overloaded, over cluttered, multi-dimensional journal ad. However, a singular-focused, thought-provoking ad, with a clear call to action might just do the job.

Palio is a full-spectrum global pharmaceutical and consumer advertising, marketing, and communications agency that excels in brand creation and specializes in brand strategy, product launches, global marketing, and digital and integrated media.

From Tiffany Ryan, VP, Account Services, Palio

I often look to Fast Company for inspiration. I was introduced to it by my first real boss (“real” meaning my first advertising job). And I haven’t stopped reading since.

Fast Company is all about innovation and unexpected discoveries. Never have I been more awe-inspired, than in reading about IBM’s World Community Grid (WCG) project. Utilizing idle time at an individual’s computer, the WCG utilizes the machine’s central processing unit to do calculations for various research sites. This analysis is then fed back to the individual sites. Seems like a simple process, but I have to admit, I don’t have the computer science intellect to really understand how it works.

While I will never understand the software and management of this program, the potential benefits in helping research labs find cures and treatments for some of the world’s most serious illnesses is incredible. This platform is being used to assist cancer, HIV, and muscular dystrophy research centers. It’s even running algorithms to help solve world hunger!

This platform has the ability to revolutionize medical research as we know it. By reducing research times from decades to a few years, the potential impact on our communities is impressive. But what may be most impressive of all, is the ability of the average citizen to give back to medical research so easily – as one campus marketing campaign slogan captured “When doing nothing is doing something.”

And if it helps find more medications to treat HIV? I’m in.